Bitcoin Forum
November 16, 2018, 12:13:00 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 [155] 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Evolution is a hoax  (Read 82471 times)
MJK_Anfaenger
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 46


View Profile WWW
March 16, 2018, 06:23:52 PM
 #3081

Quote
In my opinion they are just sags of skin or wrinkles for the further developement

And that's the point. It's just your opinion. Your opinion vs. countless scientists independently from each other saying, "yup, that might have been gills", based on their research. You see how one thing might be more credible than the other? I'm glad you checked out the link, though. As long as there is curiosity there is an opportunity to learn and a basis for communication Smiley

Were do you think that tail bone remnant came from, by the way? Did god but it there to test your faith?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
MJK_Anfaenger
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 46


View Profile WWW
March 16, 2018, 06:48:17 PM
 #3082

Hey man, that's a pretty big post, thanks for your perspective. I'm just gonna address some of the points you made:

Quote
13. The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.

That is simply not true. The earliest fossil record extends back into the Precambrian. The oldest fossils are cyanobacteria. I would hardly call that complex life.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html

Quote
22. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If life evolved on Earth, one would expect that at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the moon and Mars.

You realize that this is a weak argument? There are more planets in the universe than there are grains of sand on earth. We have send probes to two planets. two. Curiosity, which is currently active on mars, has covered 45km on a planet with a surface area of roughly 144798500 km. And that is basis enough for you to dismiss the possibility of life in the entire universe? Hmmm, when you're looking for your keys, do you just check in your left pocket and give up when they're not there? Cheesy

This argument doesn't even have anything to do with evolution. Because even if, hypothetically, there is no life in the entire universe except on earth, that would simply mean that the conditions for life to begin, are extremely rare. Doesn't point to a creator. And naturally, even if there were one, there's no reason it would be the god of the bible. Could have been Brahma Smiley


BADecker
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1081


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 08:57:52 PM
 #3083

Hey man, that's a pretty big post, thanks for your perspective. I'm just gonna address some of the points you made:

Quote
13. The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.

That is simply not true. The earliest fossil record extends back into the Precambrian. The oldest fossils are cyanobacteria. I would hardly call that complex life.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html
You need to remember what was said. Complex life. A car engine roars to life, but it is not complex life. Why not? Because people can make car engines and start them. Nobody can make a cyanobacteria from scratch, or any other form of nature-made life. Why not? It's complex life.

However, if you find a handful of bacteria that are pre-Cambrian, the multitudes of Cambrian life that came about "suddenly" defies explanation. Not even punctuated equilibrium comes close to explaining it.

"Cambrian" has to do with man-made timelines. These are distinctly incorrect. All you need to do is read the conflicting info from the people who started the various earth-age-determining methods.



Quote
22. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If life evolved on Earth, one would expect that at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the moon and Mars.

You realize that this is a weak argument? There are more planets in the universe than there are grains of sand on earth. We have send probes to two planets. two. Curiosity, which is currently active on mars, has covered 45km on a planet with a surface area of roughly 144798500 km. And that is basis enough for you to dismiss the possibility of life in the entire universe? Hmmm, when you're looking for your keys, do you just check in your left pocket and give up when they're not there? Cheesy

This argument doesn't even have anything to do with evolution. Because even if, hypothetically, there is no life in the entire universe except on earth, that would simply mean that the conditions for life to begin, are extremely rare. Doesn't point to a creator. And naturally, even if there were one, there's no reason it would be the god of the bible. Could have been Brahma Smiley


And when you look for it, you will find that there are 200+ requirements for life on a planet. This isn't for evolution type development of life. This is just so life can exist no matter how it got there. Each of these requirements has to be in place perfectly. If one isn't there, life that is planted will die out... sooner or later.

Why is this important? Because it drops the number of planets that could hold life, from the millions of planets out there, to only one... earth. It's in the numbers.

What is amazing is that earth doesn't even have the ability to support life according to the 200+. So, what's holding life in place here?

We have a long way to go to understand why anything is alive.

Evolution is a complete and total hoax.

Cool
BADecker
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1081


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 09:01:13 PM
 #3084

Quote
In my opinion they are just sags of skin or wrinkles for the further developement

And that's the point. It's just your opinion. Your opinion vs. countless scientists independently from each other saying, "yup, that might have been gills", based on their research. You see how one thing might be more credible than the other? I'm glad you checked out the link, though. As long as there is curiosity there is an opportunity to learn and a basis for communication Smiley

Were do you think that tail bone remnant came from, by the way? Did god but it there to test your faith?

When scientists say something like, "yup, that might have been gills," they are also saying, "yup, that might NOT have been gills." Ideas and theories are great. But when you tout unproven ideas like evolution as fact, without recognizing that the evidence can be applied to other things better, you have a hoax or a religion.

Evolution is a hoax, but it has become a religion for many.

Cool
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 910
Merit: 586


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 09:27:03 PM
 #3085

That guy up there is just trying to get his post count up Roll Eyes

Soo, you're referring to the discovery that all embryos share common features, passing through similar stages that reflect our evolution. Like the fact that human and chicken embryos go through a stage where they have slits and arches in their necks, which lends support to the idea that chicken and human share a common ancestor with fish. This naturally applies to every other creature on earth, as well. (https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_02)

Since you don't trust scientific evidence, how about something more practical?

Our gonads start out near the liver, like a fish's. But in our case, they descend to become ovaries or testes, which makes men also more prone to hernias. Bad design. What explanation do you offer for this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-13278255

Another more practical proof for evolution would be a giraffe's laryngeal nerve. In a fish, that nerve goes from the brain to the gills. But as giraffe's neck evolved to become longer, that nerve grew along, taking an extremely unnecessary detour through it's body. So what other possible explanation do you offer, besides natural selection incrementally elongating that nerve?

All this might be evidence for evolution, but it is no proof of evolution, and evidence of a loving god more than it is evidence for evolution. Why? Because all these things fit creation by God at least as easily as they might fit evolution.

Note that all life is carbon cycle DNA. God created it this way so that there could be "friendly" co-habitation and interaction on the same planet. He made it so that all things could work together. He also made it for two other reasons:
1. So that people would marvel at the wondrous ways He made things;
2. So that other people would confound themselves ever more deeply by not looking at the other facts.

What are those other facts? That evolution is impossible. Topping these facts is cause and effect. Next is complexity. Here are 25 more from one website:
Quote
1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).

2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.

3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.

4. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight-lifting program pass his well-developed muscles on to his child. No mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring.

5. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.

"A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it - just as the random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow ( past Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)

6. Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest") actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability), the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain.

7. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.

8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.

9. All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent.

10. All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.

11. Created kind are only observed going into extinction, never coming into existence.

12. The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.

13. The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.

14. Insects have no known evolutionary ancestors.

15. Many different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other (symbiotic relationships). Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first, it could not have survived. Since all members of these groups have survived, they must have come into existence simultaneously. The only possible answer for their existence is "intelligent design".

16. It is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary process that results in sexual reproduction. Complementary male and female systems must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at the exact same time and place. The millions of mechanical and chemical processes, as well as behavioral patterns and physical characteristics, would all need to be compatible. Even leading evolutionists admit they cannot explain this.

17. Human speech and languages did not evolve - in fact the best evidence is that languages "devolve". Speech is uniquely human. Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact show that speech appears to be learned only from other humans. Apparently, humans do not automatically speak. If so, the first humans must have been endowed with a speaking ability (intelligent input). There is no evidence that speech has evolved.

18. Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are produced only by intelligence. No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.

19. The existence of similarities between different forms of life implies a common designer, not a common ancestor. One would not, for example, assume that a submarine evolved into an "amphibious" seaplane, which in turn evolved into a passenger airliner. All might have common features such as propellers, internal combustion engines, and metal frameworks - but this is simply an indication of a common intelligent designer (man), not a common ancestor (the submarine).

20. Many single-celled forms of life exist, but there are no known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4 or 5 cells, and the forms of life with 6 to 20 cells are parasites. If evolution occurred, one should find many forms of life with 2 to 20 cells as transitional forms between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

21. As an embryo develops, it does not repeat an evolutionary sequence. Although it is widely known that Ernst Haeckel, who popularized this belief, deliberately falsified his drawings, they are still used in current biology textbooks.

22. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If life evolved on Earth, one would expect that at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the moon and Mars.

23. Ape-men never existed. It is now acknowledged that "Piltdown man" was a hoax; the only evidence for "Nebraska man" turned out to be a pig's tooth; Eugene Bubois conceded forty years after he discovered "Java man" that it was just a large gibbon; the skulls of "Peking man" are now considered by many to be the remains of apes; the classification Homo erectus is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.

24. The earth's sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly, not slowly over millions of years. There is no evidence of erosion between layers. The existence of fossils dictates a sudden deposition of sediments. "Polystrate" fossils (those that span multiple strata) can only be explained by rapid burial in multiple sedimentary layers that were liquefied or soft at the time. The "millions of years" assigned to the geological strata and the evolutionary tree is based entirely on unfounded assumptions.

25. Radioactive dating methods are based on a number of untestable assumptions that produce "old age" results. Past atmospheric conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, state of the earth's magnetic field, decay rates of radioactive elements, and other factors are simply unknown. Most dating techniques actually indicate that the earth is "young", not "old".

If that's not enough, Google "evolution is impossible."

Then look at all the supposed debunking of the reasons why evolution is impossible. You will find that the debunking language used by the "impossible-evolution" debunkers, actually debunks their own debunking.

You and a bunch of other evolutionists are missing it.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool


1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

3. The theory of Mendel has provided a great contribution to the theory of evolution

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/Acquired-traits-are-incapable-of-directing-evolution-Justify-the-statement/Diversity-in-Living-Organisms/86260.htm

Just like you can read things that supposedly disprove evolution, you can also read rebuttals of them on google, why don't you ever read those I wonder?



                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
        █████           █████
        █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████
        █████
        █████



   Borderless Trading with Jarvis Exchange
Whitepaper | Twitter | Facebook | Medium | Instagram
Przemax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 09:36:39 PM
 #3086

Quote
Were do you think that tail bone remnant came from, by the way? Did god but it there to test your faith?

No. The remain of a tail is to test evolutionist faith that are tempted to cut it out. That is the same case with the whales and his "legs". It is very very very needed as long as you want to have any control with your sex life and ability to control when you dump and when you do not dump.

It is especially useful in women sexual life as those bones are for the Kegel muscles.



It is the muscle attached to the "tail" and pubic bone. Go ahead and cut of all of it....

Quote
And that's the point. It's just your opinion.

Yes it is opinion versus opinion...

About the points that Baddecker had given - you say you have found something that "might have been". Fossils can be made not taking a lot of years - all it need to be is sharply decrease any oxygen like during the flood. Geological dating is circular logic at best.

And you said about the planets that "maybe it is possible". So you only answered to 2 and you answered maybe it is possible versus - it was not been found. And you say that what we say is weak... well...

Just because there are no life outside of the earth that we know does not point towards creator. Maybe it does not. Ok. You still need some faith, but it points less to evolution ok?

BADecker
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1081


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 09:44:08 PM
 #3087

That guy up there is just trying to get his post count up Roll Eyes

Soo, you're referring to the discovery that all embryos share common features, passing through similar stages that reflect our evolution. Like the fact that human and chicken embryos go through a stage where they have slits and arches in their necks, which lends support to the idea that chicken and human share a common ancestor with fish. This naturally applies to every other creature on earth, as well. (https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evodevo_02)

Since you don't trust scientific evidence, how about something more practical?

Our gonads start out near the liver, like a fish's. But in our case, they descend to become ovaries or testes, which makes men also more prone to hernias. Bad design. What explanation do you offer for this?

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-13278255

Another more practical proof for evolution would be a giraffe's laryngeal nerve. In a fish, that nerve goes from the brain to the gills. But as giraffe's neck evolved to become longer, that nerve grew along, taking an extremely unnecessary detour through it's body. So what other possible explanation do you offer, besides natural selection incrementally elongating that nerve?

All this might be evidence for evolution, but it is no proof of evolution, and evidence of a loving god more than it is evidence for evolution. Why? Because all these things fit creation by God at least as easily as they might fit evolution.

Note that all life is carbon cycle DNA. God created it this way so that there could be "friendly" co-habitation and interaction on the same planet. He made it so that all things could work together. He also made it for two other reasons:
1. So that people would marvel at the wondrous ways He made things;
2. So that other people would confound themselves ever more deeply by not looking at the other facts.

What are those other facts? That evolution is impossible. Topping these facts is cause and effect. Next is complexity. Here are 25 more from one website:
Quote
1. It is an established scientific fact that life cannot originate from non-living matter (the Law of Biogenesis).

2. The chemical evolution of life is impossible. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure by which this could occur. The Miller-Urey experiment, still shown in many current textbooks, has been proven to be irrelevant.

3. Mendel's Laws of Genetics limit the variations in a species. Different combinations of genes are formed, but not different genes. Breeding experiments and common observations have also confirmed that genetic boundaries exist.

4. Acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. For example, the long necks of giraffes did not result from their ancestors stretching their necks to reach high leaves, nor does a man in a weight-lifting program pass his well-developed muscles on to his child. No mechanism exists whereby the altered behavior of an organism, in an attempt to adapt to its environment, will produce a genetic change in its offspring.

5. Genetic mutations have never made a creature more viable than its ancestors. Mutations are almost always harmful, and many are lethal. More than 90 years of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 successive generations, give absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability.

"A mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it - just as the random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow ( past Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)

6. Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest") actually prevents evolutionary change, it does not encourage it. Since mutations almost always contribute to a decrease in viability (survivability), the mutated animal quickly becomes part of the food chain.

7. Mutations cannot produce complex organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain, much less the intricacy of design found in microbiological organisms. These organs are not even imaginable, much less viable in a partially developed state. The principle of "irreducible complexity" demonstrates that a wide range of component parts and technologies must be simultaneously existent for these organs to function. In a partially developed state, they would become a liability to an organism, not an advantage. Moreover, most complex organs have interdependent relationships with other complex organs which enable proper functioning. These relationships must also be simultaneously existent.

8. The most complex phenomena known to science are found in living systems. Detailed studies of various animals have also revealed physical equipment and capabilities that cannot even be copied by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. Examples include the miniature and reliable sonar systems of dolphins, porpoises and whales; the frequency-modulated radar and discrimination system of bats; the aerodynamic capabilities and efficiency of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics and combustion chamber of the bombardier beetle; the precise and redundant navigational system of the arctic tern; and the self-repair capabilities of practically all forms of life. All evidence points to "intelligent design," not random processes.

9. All living species are fully developed, and their organs are fully developed. There are no living lizards with scale-feathers, leg-wings, or 3-chambered hearts. If evolutionary processes were the norm, these intermediate forms of development should be observable throughout nature. Instead, they are non-existent.

10. All living creatures are divided into distinct types. There should be a myriad of transitional, un-classifiable creatures if evolution was the norm. There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.

11. Created kind are only observed going into extinction, never coming into existence.

12. The fossil record contains no transitional forms of animals, only extinct forms. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that the alleged "gaps" or "missing links" will never be found.

13. The so-called "evolutionary tree" has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian sedimentary layer), life appears suddenly, complex, diversified and fully developed.

14. Insects have no known evolutionary ancestors.

15. Many different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other (symbiotic relationships). Even members of the honeybee family, consisting of the queen, workers, and drones, are interdependent. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first, it could not have survived. Since all members of these groups have survived, they must have come into existence simultaneously. The only possible answer for their existence is "intelligent design".

16. It is impossible to conceive of an evolutionary process that results in sexual reproduction. Complementary male and female systems must have completely and independently evolved at each stage at the exact same time and place. The millions of mechanical and chemical processes, as well as behavioral patterns and physical characteristics, would all need to be compatible. Even leading evolutionists admit they cannot explain this.

17. Human speech and languages did not evolve - in fact the best evidence is that languages "devolve". Speech is uniquely human. Furthermore, studies of 36 documented cases of children raised without human contact show that speech appears to be learned only from other humans. Apparently, humans do not automatically speak. If so, the first humans must have been endowed with a speaking ability (intelligent input). There is no evidence that speech has evolved.

18. Codes and programs (DNA and the genetic code) are produced only by intelligence. No natural process has ever been observed to produce a program.

19. The existence of similarities between different forms of life implies a common designer, not a common ancestor. One would not, for example, assume that a submarine evolved into an "amphibious" seaplane, which in turn evolved into a passenger airliner. All might have common features such as propellers, internal combustion engines, and metal frameworks - but this is simply an indication of a common intelligent designer (man), not a common ancestor (the submarine).

20. Many single-celled forms of life exist, but there are no known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4 or 5 cells, and the forms of life with 6 to 20 cells are parasites. If evolution occurred, one should find many forms of life with 2 to 20 cells as transitional forms between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

21. As an embryo develops, it does not repeat an evolutionary sequence. Although it is widely known that Ernst Haeckel, who popularized this belief, deliberately falsified his drawings, they are still used in current biology textbooks.

22. No verified form of extraterrestrial life of any kind has ever been observed. If life evolved on Earth, one would expect that at least simple forms of life, such as microbes, would have been found by the elaborate experiments sent to the moon and Mars.

23. Ape-men never existed. It is now acknowledged that "Piltdown man" was a hoax; the only evidence for "Nebraska man" turned out to be a pig's tooth; Eugene Bubois conceded forty years after he discovered "Java man" that it was just a large gibbon; the skulls of "Peking man" are now considered by many to be the remains of apes; the classification Homo erectus is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.

24. The earth's sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly, not slowly over millions of years. There is no evidence of erosion between layers. The existence of fossils dictates a sudden deposition of sediments. "Polystrate" fossils (those that span multiple strata) can only be explained by rapid burial in multiple sedimentary layers that were liquefied or soft at the time. The "millions of years" assigned to the geological strata and the evolutionary tree is based entirely on unfounded assumptions.

25. Radioactive dating methods are based on a number of untestable assumptions that produce "old age" results. Past atmospheric conditions, solar activity, volcanic activity, state of the earth's magnetic field, decay rates of radioactive elements, and other factors are simply unknown. Most dating techniques actually indicate that the earth is "young", not "old".

If that's not enough, Google "evolution is impossible."

Then look at all the supposed debunking of the reasons why evolution is impossible. You will find that the debunking language used by the "impossible-evolution" debunkers, actually debunks their own debunking.

You and a bunch of other evolutionists are missing it.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool


1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)
Actually, the theory of evolution applies only as long as somebody believes in it. Why? Because nobody will ever prove it as fact, and nobody will ever prove its evidence to fit evolution better than something else... like creation.


From that website: "2. It is possible that life arose well away from the atmosphere." In other words, we don't know, scientifically. Evolution is not known to exist, just as abiogenesis is not known to exist.


Wikipedia is a neat idea. But it is full of misinformation, because it only accepts what is popular.



Just like you can read things that supposedly disprove evolution, you can also read rebuttals of them on google, why don't you ever read those I wonder?

As I said, the rebuttals rebut themselves in their attempt to rebut proof that evolution is impossible. How do they do this? by using circular references and limiting words regarding evolution.

but you know this all. Yet you would hold onto your evolution religion even though you know it is just a religion. Just a religion, except for people like you who know evolution is false. For you...

Evolution is a hoax...

to trap other people.

Cool
Przemax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 09:47:12 PM
 #3088

Quote
1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

3. The theory of Mendel has provided a great contribution to the theory of evolution

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/Acquired-traits-are-incapable-of-directing-evolution-Justify-the-statement/Diversity-in-Living-Organisms/86260.htm

Just like you can read things that supposedly disprove evolution, you can also read rebuttals of them on google, why don't you ever read those I wonder?

1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement.
2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed.
3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.
4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 910
Merit: 586


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 09:48:01 PM
 #3089

''In other words, we don't know, scientifically.'' Well, yeah, it's a really hard problem, however as explained above, how life arose is meaningless when talking about evolution theory.

4. Just like answers in genesis is a totally biased website? I provided other link and you can also just google it.

''As I said, the rebuttals rebut themselves in their attempt to rebut proof that evolution is impossible.''

Your brain is a little bit fucked up but that's ok, I will help you, you didn't even check any rebuttals, you always just try to find ''proof'' against evolution in your 2-3 religious websites and never bother to look anywhere else.



                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
        █████           █████
        █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████
        █████
        █████



   Borderless Trading with Jarvis Exchange
Whitepaper | Twitter | Facebook | Medium | Instagram
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 910
Merit: 586


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 09:50:34 PM
 #3090

Quote
1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

3. The theory of Mendel has provided a great contribution to the theory of evolution

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/Acquired-traits-are-incapable-of-directing-evolution-Justify-the-statement/Diversity-in-Living-Organisms/86260.htm

Just like you can read things that supposedly disprove evolution, you can also read rebuttals of them on google, why don't you ever read those I wonder?

1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement.
2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed.
3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.
4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

1. Actually, life evolved but we don't know for sure how life originated, is it really that hard to understand? I thought it was quite a self explanatory point.

2. ?? Your book is a hoax made by idiots thousands of years ago.

3. ''Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.'' Tell that to badecker

4. I provided 2 links, do you and badecker only see wikipedia when you read something?



                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
        █████           █████
        █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████
        █████
        █████



   Borderless Trading with Jarvis Exchange
Whitepaper | Twitter | Facebook | Medium | Instagram
BADecker
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1081


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 09:55:50 PM
 #3091

''In other words, we don't know, scientifically.'' Well, yeah, it's a really hard problem, however as explained above, how life arose is meaningless when talking about evolution theory.
How life arose is NOT meaningless when talking about evolution theory. All of the true abiogenesis (which isn't really abiogenesis at all) is important because it proves evolution theory false.



4. Just like answers in genesis is a totally biased website? I provided other link and you can also just google it.
Bias isn't the important thing. If the site were placed there from Neptune inhabitants who thought they were talking about life on Neptune, it would still be accurate. Why? Because it is accurate.



''As I said, the rebuttals rebut themselves in their attempt to rebut proof that evolution is impossible.''

Your brain is a little bit fucked up but that's ok, I will help you, you didn't even check any rebuttals, you always just try to find ''proof'' against evolution in your 2-3 religious websites and never bother to look anywhere else.

I don't have to check those rebuttals today. I have checked many of them in the past, and I know the circular logic they use.

You are the one who hasn't checked them. If you had, you would see the circular logic in them, unless you are a... troll.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
BADecker
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1081


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 09:59:22 PM
 #3092

Quote
1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

3. The theory of Mendel has provided a great contribution to the theory of evolution

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/Acquired-traits-are-incapable-of-directing-evolution-Justify-the-statement/Diversity-in-Living-Organisms/86260.htm

Just like you can read things that supposedly disprove evolution, you can also read rebuttals of them on google, why don't you ever read those I wonder?

1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement.
2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed.
3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.
4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

1. Actually, life evolved but we don't know for sure how life originated, is it really that hard to understand? I thought it was quite a self explanatory point.

2. ?? Your book is a hoax made by idiots thousands of years ago.

3. ''Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.'' Tell that to badecker

4. I provided 2 links, do you and badecker only see wikipedia when you read something?

You yourself know that you don't know for a fact that life evolved. You believe it because some other people told it to you. And you are so happy about it that you won't even check out the fact that they are talking nonsense. You would rather simply believe. If you were honest, you would stop troll spreading your religion as fact, when you don't know that it is fact.

Evolution is a hoax, and you are helping to prove it.

Cool
Przemax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 10:01:50 PM
 #3093

Quote
1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

3. The theory of Mendel has provided a great contribution to the theory of evolution

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/Acquired-traits-are-incapable-of-directing-evolution-Justify-the-statement/Diversity-in-Living-Organisms/86260.htm

Just like you can read things that supposedly disprove evolution, you can also read rebuttals of them on google, why don't you ever read those I wonder?

1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement.
2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed.
3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.
4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

1. Actually, life evolved but we don't know for sure how life originated, is it really that hard to understand? I thought it was quite a self explanatory point.

2. ?? Your book is a hoax made by idiots thousands of years ago.

3. ''Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.'' Tell that to badecker

4. I provided 2 links, do you and badecker only see wikipedia when you read something?

1. It is a sylogism.
2. My point was - your link gives no info for the reader.
3. Ok. He is just a man. Not all of those points are about impossibility, some of them are about improbability.
4. Sorry I thought it was one link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic - geneticists are talking about phenotypes and genotypes. The so called hereditary is more in touch with phenotypes.

The answer in the second link:
 
a) Acquired traits mostly are concerned with somatic cells.

b) Acquired traits cannot be carry forwarded to next generation as there is no change in the genetic material of the reproductive cells.

c) Acquired traits mainly include changes in the behaviour which are due to life style followed by an organism.

Is not b) point proving the Baddecker point? And isnt the c) proving phenotype concept?
BADecker
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1081


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 10:11:33 PM
 #3094

Quote
1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

2. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB035.html

3. The theory of Mendel has provided a great contribution to the theory of evolution

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic https://www.nextgurukul.in/nganswers/ask-question/answer/Acquired-traits-are-incapable-of-directing-evolution-Justify-the-statement/Diversity-in-Living-Organisms/86260.htm

Just like you can read things that supposedly disprove evolution, you can also read rebuttals of them on google, why don't you ever read those I wonder?

1. Wow. Life evolved because life exist? Wow... That is deeply religious statement.
2. What is this? No abstract, no conclusion. What is that? They had to hoax the original experiment by finding the missing vials in 2008. Why? Because there were no other ways to cheat the truth - the fraud was needed.
3. Sorry, but... it is probably the same reasoning as in point 1. Am I right? Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.
4. "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name."

1. Actually, life evolved but we don't know for sure how life originated, is it really that hard to understand? I thought it was quite a self explanatory point.

2. ?? Your book is a hoax made by idiots thousands of years ago.

3. ''Because statisticly it make it less probable. Still it does not make it impossible.'' Tell that to badecker

4. I provided 2 links, do you and badecker only see wikipedia when you read something?

1. It is a sylogism.
2. My point was - your link gives no info for the reader.
3. Ok. He is just a man. Not all of those points are about impossibility, some of them are about improbability.
4. Sorry I thought it was one link. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquired_characteristic - geneticists are talking about phenotypes and genotypes. The so called hereditary is more in touch with phenotypes.

The answer in the second link:
 
a) Acquired traits mostly are concerned with somatic cells.

b) Acquired traits cannot be carry forwarded to next generation as there is no change in the genetic material of the reproductive cells.

c) Acquired traits mainly include changes in the behaviour which are due to life style followed by an organism.

Is not b) point proving the Baddecker point? And isnt the c) proving phenotype concept?

In addition, God is a giving God. but, at the same time He can't deny Himself. So, what does He do?

Because God is giving, and because nobody can change this quality of His, He gives evolutionists the answer that they want to see, by blinding their minds to the truth. After all, He isn't going to deny Himself by changing the truth, or by denying evolutionists what they ask for and changing His nature thereby.

Cool
Przemax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 10:40:47 PM
 #3095

I need to give a remark about the first answer.

It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.

In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 910
Merit: 586


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 11:07:26 PM
 #3096

I need to give a remark about the first answer.

It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.

In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.

Actually even if God created life, evolution would still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution.



                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
        █████           █████
        █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████
        █████
        █████



   Borderless Trading with Jarvis Exchange
Whitepaper | Twitter | Facebook | Medium | Instagram
Przemax
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 546
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 16, 2018, 11:18:44 PM
 #3097

I need to give a remark about the first answer.

It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.

In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.

Actually even if God created life, evolution would still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution.

Actually even if God created life, evolution COULD still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution.

Here you go.

It would defile the Ockham razor and it would be irrational... but hey logically there is such a possibility, and Im open to everything, believe it or not.

Right now I would say - it is highly... terribly against the odds to have happened. But hey - people are hugely against the odds to be creationists as well. And to find two of them on the same forum is rare. So things can happen despite the odds.
Astargath
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 910
Merit: 586


View Profile
March 17, 2018, 10:21:19 AM
 #3098

I need to give a remark about the first answer.

It is a syllogism of how you presented it. It would not be the syllogism, and the way you wanted to present, if you would say:

1. Abiogenesis (The theory of evolution COULD apply (IF TRUE) as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution.)

Otherwise it is a sylogism and gives the reader wrong impression.

In other words you say - you have no idea how life originated, it could be God, and your evolution might be not true, but you want to believe it.

Actually even if God created life, evolution would still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution.

Actually even if God created life, evolution COULD still be true and it's a fact that a lot of religious people accept evolution.

Here you go.

It would defile the Ockham razor and it would be irrational... but hey logically there is such a possibility, and Im open to everything, believe it or not.

Right now I would say - it is highly... terribly against the odds to have happened. But hey - people are hugely against the odds to be creationists as well. And to find two of them on the same forum is rare. So things can happen despite the odds.

Making up odds isn't a good path to the truth. Evolution is a fact not odds. I don't know why you are against it so much, it's not an ideology, it doesn't hurt anyone, just because it opposes your childish beliefs? All the applications as well like medicine with antibiotic resistance or artificial selection and even computer science, why do you dislike that?



                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
                        █████
        █████           █████
        █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████   █████
        █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████   █████
█████   █████
        █████
        █████



   Borderless Trading with Jarvis Exchange
Whitepaper | Twitter | Facebook | Medium | Instagram
djBeatcoin
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 30
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 17, 2018, 02:36:41 PM
 #3099

Quote
I'm sure Nietzsche didn't take the Bible literally.
Why do people talk about something they have no idea about? Especially about the difficult subject like Nietzsche literature? You had not expected for a christian to know the writtings of Nietzsche? I do not have to agree with what I read, unlike evolutionists that refuse to read anything critical against evolution.
I mentioned Nietzsche's saying of the death of God only to illustrate that religious zealots, literal believers and ritualists are kind of similar to modern creationists because they lack deeper understanding of religion. Shallow (literal) understanding kills religion and makes it look ridiculous to most educated people. This is my point and Nietzsche's, if I remember well.
And I wouldn't say Jesus took the Bible so seriously. He violated many Jewish taboos and rules during his life. He summarized 613 Jewish commandments into one Golden rule. After all, Christianity came out from His upgrading of the Old Testament. Judaism was a tribal ethnocentric religion and Old Testament reflects that, while New Testament opens the level of a world religion free from many tribal taboos and superstitions (not from all).
What you call "luke warm" I call "open towards new perspectives". But literal reading cuts you the trouble of thinking for yourself, you can just take things as they are written because of their traditional authority. I choose the way of inquiry, scepticism and knowledge.

BADecker
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1848
Merit: 1081


View Profile
March 17, 2018, 03:34:32 PM
 #3100

Quote
I'm sure Nietzsche didn't take the Bible literally.
Why do people talk about something they have no idea about? Especially about the difficult subject like Nietzsche literature? You had not expected for a christian to know the writtings of Nietzsche? I do not have to agree with what I read, unlike evolutionists that refuse to read anything critical against evolution.
I mentioned Nietzsche's saying of the death of God only to illustrate that religious zealots, literal believers and ritualists are kind of similar to modern creationists because they lack deeper understanding of religion. Shallow (literal) understanding kills religion and makes it look ridiculous to most educated people. This is my point and Nietzsche's, if I remember well.
And I wouldn't say Jesus took the Bible so seriously. He violated many Jewish taboos and rules during his life. He summarized 613 Jewish commandments into one Golden rule. After all, Christianity came out from His upgrading of the Old Testament. Judaism was a tribal ethnocentric religion and Old Testament reflects that, while New Testament opens the level of a world religion free from many tribal taboos and superstitions (not from all).
What you call "luke warm" I call "open towards new perspectives". But literal reading cuts you the trouble of thinking for yourself, you can just take things as they are written because of their traditional authority. I choose the way of inquiry, scepticism and knowledge.



You entirely ignore the fact that according to the complete definition of religion, Nietzsche and evolution and atheism are religion, just as formal religions are religion. See #6 at Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t): "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Now find some proof of evolution, or become honest with yourself.

Evolution is a hoax.

Cool
Pages: « 1 ... 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 [155] 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!